Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.

[Reheat]

Pfft the 4th Amendment is dead and buried. It'd be a thread derail but I'll give you plenty of examples if you like.

Start another thread if you like. It's not appropriate here...

 

[Whip]

Of course it's a waste of time. Your goal is to find out what people think about guns, right? You could accomplish that by talking to them about guns.

technically, the title of the threads says 'assault weapons'. A car used to cause damage to another person would be an 'assault weapon'. Same as if I beat someone senseless with a tennis racket.....that would be an 'assault weapon'.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The other option is to just wait it out. No searching, just whats found is confiscated. As the older generation dies out, at least some of their kids would turn in banned firearms. Maybe in a century or so most would be gone.

Which at least would be a move in the right direction. I think we all realise that this can't be solved in a day, a week or a month; the problem seems to be that any attempt to solve it in any timescale whatsoever is simply shouted down by a declaration of the inerrancy and ubiquity of the Second Amendment.

Dave

 

[lobosrul5]

Not banned.

Just requires it be bought from a Class 3 dealer. And, in practice the ones on the market are outrageously expensive.

As an aside, right up the road from me is McCaysville Gun & Drug, a Class 3 dealer.

If it was made on or before a certain date in 1986. So, any full auto firearm model that didn't exist until after, is in effect, banned.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

...the problem seems to be that any attempt to solve it in any timescale whatsoever is simply shouted down by a declaration of the inerrancy and ubiquity of the Second Amendment.

The Founding Fathers almost certainly could not envision what “arms” might become in a couple hundred years.

But they did envision that times change, and that the Constitution might need amending, and then further amending to keep up with changing times. And they provided a simple way to do so.

But simple does not imply easy - it was made intentionally hard. But if it becomes the will of the people to repeal the Second Amendment, there’s a clear path to doing so. For those who want to ban or seriously restrict whole classes of firearms, that’s where their attention and efforts should focus.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

If it was made on or before a certain date in 1986. So, any full auto firearm model that didn't exist until after, is in effect, banned.

Got it - thanks for the clarification.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Enforce the law. If you can ban certain drugs, you can ban certain firearms.

Not sure that makes the case you wish to make.

One could easily point out how readily available those “certain drugs” remain in spite of their illegality. And that there’s no reason to assume the same would not apply to “certain firearms”.

 

[Whip]

Enforce the law. If you can ban certain drugs, you can ban certain firearms.

I don't think there is an amendment for 'the right to bare drugs'.

 

[Hellbound]

I don't think there is an amendment for 'the right to bare drugs'.

And think what it would do to manufacturers of capsules if there were...

 

[lobosrul5]

The Founding Fathers almost certainly could not envision what “arms” might become in a couple hundred years.

But they did envision that times change, and that the Constitution might need amending, and then further amending to keep up with changing times. And they provided a simple way to do so.

But simple does not imply easy - it was made intentionally hard. But if it becomes the will of the people to repeal the Second Amendment, there’s a clear path to doing so. For those who want to ban or seriously restrict whole classes of firearms, that’s where their attention and efforts should focus.

Thing is it says "arms", not "guns" or "firearms". Nor does it say: "right to keep and bear all types of arms". That's intentionally (I assume) very open. We ban civilian ownership of all kinds of arms in the US. Want to import some ex-soviet figher jets complete with missiles and bombs? Good luck with that, even for a billionaire. Want to keep a warehouse full of mustard gas? Good luck with that too.

 

[3point14]

Of course it's a waste of time. Your goal is to find out what people think about guns, right? You could accomplish that by talking to them about guns.

Not really, no. In this instance my goal is to confirm or deny my suspicions that gun advocates retreat into technical talk of the merits and demerits of different types of firearm primarily so they are able to disregard the arguments of non gun experts. One of the ways of checking that people are honest in these endeavors is to check that, in parallel situations, they have a similar outlook.

I would normally take a mad dash away from the analogy to be at least an indicator that the thinking is not consistent and that the technical talk is just a smokescreen.

Instead you've decided to embark on a much longer, irrelevant journey: Establish that cars are similar to guns in certain specific ways. Establish that the person you're talking to sees the similarity you do. Establish that the person reaches same conclusions as you, about cars. Establish that the person agrees that the conclusion about cars properly carries over to the similar thing about guns.

I don't want to help you unpack and map out all the points of your analogy, just to have a conversation about guns.

If you want to talk about gun policy, talk about gum policy. If you want to know what someone thinks about gun policy, don't ask them what they think about speed limits.

Again, I want to establish that those that dazzle with talk of fps and rates of fire and bullpups and fire control switches are honest in their debate. I do not think that they are. I think that's one of the reasons you're running so hard from this analogy. Wouldn't it be simpler, if the analogy is not consistent, to tell me why, rather than insist I can't use it? but not address why I can't use it?

With your analogy, the best case scenario is that you are ready to show the analogy between speed limits and whatever aspect of gun policy you *really* want to talk about. In which case, you could cut out the analogy entirely, and just talk about gun policy itself.

See above.

 

[3point14]

Enforce how?

As far as I can work out, the enforcement of firearm legislation immediately falls foul of the second amendment.


What would you say to anyone who, while you were exercising your right to free speech, asked you to prove you were entitled to that right?

Isn't it the same with carrying a firearm?

 

[lobosrul5]

As far as I can work out, the enforcement of firearm legislation immediately falls foul of the second amendment.


What would you say to anyone who, while you were exercising your right to free speech, asked you to prove you were entitled to that right?

Isn't it the same with carrying a firearm?

Well, I'd probably tell them to "**** off". But in reality we have plenty of restrictions to freedom of speech in the US.

This guy was arrested for asking a question. Anyone get into any trouble for violating his 1st amendment rights? Nope.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/01/media/shareblue-reporter-mike-stark-arrested-ed-gillespie/index.html

 

[crescent]

True, but I think the line has been drawn in the sand or dirt. I don't think any further bans would go across very well at all.

That line was destroyed last week by the shooting in Florida.

Public opinion has shifted pretty dramatically, I don't think it will stop. (ETA: The "enthusiasm gap" has always been in favor of firearms-rights advocates. That's probably the biggest change resulting from Florida. Firearms right advocates can no longer assume they have an edge in enthusiasm. Time will tell)

As for removing certain guns from circulation, slow is not at all bad. Ban legal manufacture and importation. Such weapons seized by police due to use in criminal acts get destroyed, not auctioned off. The supply starts to dry up. Guns can last just about forever, but not all of them do.

If you want to ban a given type of gun in it's entirety (I generally think that's a bad idea, but...) there are ways to make it happen.

• Order them to be turned in, you might be surprised by the number who do it voluntarily.
• Allow a long grace period where police would seize one if they encounter it but would not seek them out, and the owner would not face prosecution for having it (ETA: unless the owner was already otherwise prohibited from owning firearms).
• After that, there would still be no prosecution for turning them in, ever, but it a person could be prosecuted if they somehow get caught in possession of one - but still no active seeking out.

Use the background check system for that to start building a registry.

• Modify the system so that ALL gun transfers (sale, trade, inheritance, gift) require a full background check, with the type of gun included as a component of the information entered.
• That information is retained and becomes the basis of a registry
• Grandpa does not need to register his duck gun in the closet, but once you inherit it, it you get a background check and it gets registered that way.
• The system builds gradually.
• That's illegal under current law, but opinion is shifting fast and laws can be changed

.

You can dry up and severely reduce the supply without targeting them for seizure.

That said, I have doubts about any sort of plan that involves a full ban on anything currently in circulation. I can support banning manufacture and import of new weapons or accessories of this or that type and letting the supply slowly dwindle.

 

[theprestige]

Thing is it says "arms", not "guns" or "firearms". Nor does it say: "right to keep and bear all types of arms". That's intentionally (I assume) very open. We ban civilian ownership of all kinds of arms in the US. Want to import some ex-soviet figher jets complete with missiles and bombs? Good luck with that, even for a billionaire. Want to keep a warehouse full of mustard gas? Good luck with that too.

I find it hilarious that these discussions *always* degenerate into naive discovery of first principles.

The Supreme Court has considered the conundrum extensively. Their reasoning about where to draw the line, and why, is public record.

Likewise the reasoning, by the courts and others, about balancing human rights and human regulation, is also well developed and widely accessible.

But gun control proponents here always seem to start from a position of total ignorance of these things *and never advance*. They never study the court decisions that have already discussed the problem. They never show any sign of having reasoned out their own conclusions.

Every new thread, it's the same "I've never really thought about it, what does it mean?"

 

[Andy_Ross]

Debating any topic is not helped by excessive hyperbole. Hunters don't use semi-auto firearms to "tear prey in two".

To make up for being bad marksmen?

 

[Belz...]

I find it hilarious that these discussions *always* degenerate into naive discovery of first principles.

The Supreme Court has considered the conundrum extensively. Their reasoning about where to draw the line, and why, is public record.

Likewise the reasoning, by the courts and others, about balancing human rights and human regulation, is also well developed and widely accessible.

But gun control proponents here always seem to start from a position of total ignorance of these things *and never advance*. They never study the court decisions that have already discussed the problem. They never show any sign of having reasoned out their own conclusions.

Every new thread, it's the same "I've never really thought about it, what does it mean?"

To be entirely fair, there are a lot of posters, and the wording of the 2nd doesn't really help.

 

[crescent]

To be entirely fair, there are a lot of posters, and the wording of the 2nd doesn't really help.

And SC opinions have changed. Heller was the first time the court recognized an individual right to own guns.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes Full auto made after '86. Also anything greater than 50 cal with a rifled barrel (which makes 12 ga shotguns with rifled barrels a weird exception). Rifles with barrel lengths under a certain length, and certain other exceptions.

And shotguns with a larger bore.
You can buy a 4 and 2 bore double rifles.
They are monsters.

 

[lobosrul5]

I find it hilarious that these discussions *always* degenerate into naive discovery of first principles.

The Supreme Court has considered the conundrum extensively. Their reasoning about where to draw the line, and why, is public record.

Likewise the reasoning, by the courts and others, about balancing human rights and human regulation, is also well developed and widely accessible.

But gun control proponents here always seem to start from a position of total ignorance of these things *and never advance*. They never study the court decisions that have already discussed the problem. They never show any sign of having reasoned out their own conclusions.

Every new thread, it's the same "I've never really thought about it, what does it mean?"

Err, actually I know of the major supreme court decisions. DC v. Heller is newer and supersedes US v. Miller. But that doesn't mean it won't itself be superseded once more. Furthermore, the DC v. Heller decision doesn't contradict anything I said. I mean in part, the majority decision states: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:".
And lastly, nowhere have I said I support a ban on "assault rifles". I own an AR-15 FYI. OTOH I am now convinced its a good idea to limit who can have them. Training, checks on their mental stability etc. As long as its all done on a shall issue rather than may issue basis.